I am a bit confused by the Christian definition of God, he is apparently omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient. Yet when I show that such an entity is paradoxical and can't exist I am told that I am strawmanning the Christian God and he does not possess these qualities.

Oddly enough I have pre-emptied this by questioning how these terms apply to God and pointing out that the Christian God becomes infinitely easier to believe if we do not assign it the omni values.

So what is it Christians... what are the attributes of God?

I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.

At 9/7/2011 1:29:47 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:Much like an ant might consider us "omni"potent and "omni"scient, we too would consider God "omni" those things.

So God is very potent, very 'scient and very benevolent?

I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.

Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp

At 9/7/2011 1:41:04 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:And by good, I mean right, not good in the traditional moral sense.

Says who? This makes more sense than all-good but I'm curious as to where you're getting this from.

I'll tell you if you can show me where you get the omni-benevolent stuff from.

Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp

At 9/7/2011 1:29:47 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:Much like an ant might consider us "omni"potent and "omni"scient, we too would consider God "omni" those things.

So God is very potent, very 'scient and very benevolent?

Well, it is not possible for one to know that he is "all powerful." The only way to know is to test, and it is not possible to test everything. While we could test 100,000 things, and he could probably pass all 100,000 that still doesn't prove "all powerful."

Of course, you also run into the classic, what is "all powerful" (can be applied to all three, but let's just look at power for now). Is it able to do anything imaginable, or simply able to do anything that is capable of being done? And isn't arguing against one in particular nothing more than a semantics argument that does not truly address the heart of the debate?

I've repeatedly told people what God is, and they still don't accept it, despite it being so obvious that even a solipsist could concede and admit to it.

Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp

Only fools say in their hearts, "There is no God." There clearly is. It's right there, raping you in the face.

Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp

At 9/7/2011 1:29:47 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:Much like an ant might consider us "omni"potent and "omni"scient, we too would consider God "omni" those things.

So God is very potent, very 'scient and very benevolent?

Well, it is not possible for one to know that he is "all powerful." The only way to know is to test, and it is not possible to test everything. While we could test 100,000 things, and he could probably pass all 100,000 that still doesn't prove "all powerful."

Of course, you also run into the classic, what is "all powerful" (can be applied to all three, but let's just look at power for now). Is it able to do anything imaginable, or simply able to do anything that is capable of being done? And isn't arguing against one in particular nothing more than a semantics argument that does not truly address the heart of the debate?

I tend to go with logical omnipotence, otherwise debates get very silly and are largely about fairy dust.

I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.

Only fools say in their hearts, "There is no God." There clearly is. It's right there, raping you in the face.

Yea... I tend not to have the foggiest idea what you are talking about!

I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.

Only fools say in their hearts, "There is no God." There clearly is. It's right there, raping you in the face.

Yea... I tend not to have the foggiest idea what you are talking about!

I am not totally convinced Jesus believed in the Old Testament God.

Christianity seems to be a mixture of two totally disparate faiths, something went wrong somewhere.

I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.

At 9/7/2011 1:24:48 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:I am a bit confused by the Christian definition of God, he is apparently omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient. Yet when I show that such an entity is paradoxical and can't exist I am told that I am strawmanning the Christian God and he does not possess these qualities.

Oddly enough I have pre-emptied this by questioning how these terms apply to God and pointing out that the Christian God becomes infinitely easier to believe if we do not assign it the omni values.

So what is it Christians... what are the attributes of God?

Those words are never used in the Bible, they are SELF refuting as yellow cannot be red and light cannot be dark.. so it is the words that are in error not Christians.

Only fools say in their hearts, "There is no God." There clearly is. It's right there, raping you in the face.

Yea... I tend not to have the foggiest idea what you are talking about!

What is so hard to understand? Even if you take the words that are translated into the word "God" from the Old Testament, you will get this impression.

The problem is that the ancient Hebrew language was very limited. a few words are translated into God. A word that means "Authority" is translated into "God", and a word that means "I exist" or "I am".

God is literally existence. God is natural, there is nothing supernatural about it.

Now, then, after you realize this, understand that the bible isn't and never was intended to be the literal word of this God. This is a misunderstanding.

The Law that is written down in the book of Moses has to do with the Jewish government. The covenant between "God" and the Jewish people is really a covenant between the state and the Israeli people. The confusion arises because of how liberally translators tend to use the word "God", when because of a words many different meanings, this is not always the best route to take.

Now, the laws that were written down for the most part had to do with observations of the people at the time on what worked to get positive results for society. What many people don't realize is that the morality of the Old Testament is not arbitrary divine command bullsh!t like so many people believe.. It is a morality that is based more on moral naturalism, how ever accurate their assessments at the time were.

True prophets were always meant to be people who could accurately read the times. They do not receive some supernatural message from God, no, they observe the state of the world, and report on it. In the Old Testament, they looked out for the best interests of the Jewish people, there was strong nationalism present. In contemporary times, there are still prophets.

The orthodox understanding of basically ANY religious text you find is so off the mark that it becomes absurd. This isn't a recent phenomena either, a religion is usually misunderstood from the moment it is created. This misunderstanding only gets worse as the generations pass, and the beliefs become more and more ridiculous.

Now, of course, few people are going to agree with me on anything I say theologically, but I've said this before, and I'll say it again(as if it gives me any type of authority), I come from a long long line of preachers, and have spent the good portion of my life studying these texts obsessively.

In the case of most decent religions, once you understand it, you realize how stupid it is to label yourself a part of that religion.

Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp

At 9/7/2011 1:24:48 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:I am a bit confused by the Christian definition of God, he is apparently omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient. Yet when I show that such an entity is paradoxical and can't exist I am told that I am strawmanning the Christian God and he does not possess these qualities.

Oddly enough I have pre-emptied this by questioning how these terms apply to God and pointing out that the Christian God becomes infinitely easier to believe if we do not assign it the omni values.

So what is it Christians... what are the attributes of God?

Those words are never used in the Bible, they are SELF refuting as yellow cannot be red and light cannot be dark.. so it is the words that are in error not Christians.

Anything that seems impossible to us is possible with God.

But you need reasons NOT to believe, right?

Have you never read any of my posts? I need reasons to believe. Why do you think I indulge you so much? Why do you think I am always willing to be your audience?

I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.

At 9/7/2011 1:24:48 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:I am a bit confused by the Christian definition of God, he is apparently omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient. Yet when I show that such an entity is paradoxical and can't exist I am told that I am strawmanning the Christian God and he does not possess these qualities.

Omniscient and omnipotent are both a given, but omnibenevolent confuses the issue. It allows the atheist to decide what is good, whereas the Christian submits to God's will being good in all cases. As I stated in the other thread, the word "benevolent" doesn't even appear in my Bible(KJV), though it does say that God is perfect. Even if man judges an act to be bad, how can the will of a perfect being be bad, or evil?? That is my understanding of our use of omnibenevolent.

Oddly enough I have pre-emptied this by questioning how these terms apply to God and pointing out that the Christian God becomes infinitely easier to believe if we do not assign it the omni values.

Even if all the books in the world were burnt, my spiritual beliefs would still hold strong. My beliefs in what God is and how God's Law governs the universe, need no book to represent them. By beliefs come from rational thought ad logical conclusions.

To Christians:

How do you know God is male and not female?

How do you know the man Jesus died for all of humanity's sins?

How do you know that the bible is the true word of God?

How can you think your God doesn't influence free will, then believe God gave you a book to follow or you will be punished?

If animals don't have souls, why are they in your biblical heaven?

The biblical God kills, steals, and impregnates a husband's virgin wife... Is this not breaking three of the ten commandments that were given as law?

"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."

At 9/8/2011 2:04:02 PM, Tiel wrote:Even if all the books in the world were burnt, my spiritual beliefs would still hold strong. My beliefs in what God is and how God's Law governs the universe, need no book to represent them.

So your God allows each different person to decide what he and his laws are?? Then why do you have a problem with a Christian's "perception" of God?? You get to perceive God as you wish, but if someone has a different perception than you, they're wrong?? That seems inconsistent.

By beliefs come from rational thought ad logical conclusions.

Then why don't all rational and logical thinkers follow your god?? There must be a conflict somewhere.

To Christians:

How do you know God is male and not female?

Is the gender of my God important to you?? It's never been an issue to me.

How do you know the man Jesus died for all of humanity's sins?

The Bible says so. O

How do you know that the bible is the true word of God?

Because the Bible says it is. O

How can you think your God doesn't influence free will, then believe God gave you a book to follow or you will be punished?

Who says He doesn't try to influence us?? Ultimately though, we get to decide whether to follow Him, or not. There are consequences for making the wrong choices. That's not, at all, inconsistent with the way things are here on earth, so what's the problem??

If animals don't have souls, why are they in your biblical heaven?

Never gave it much thought but if they're there, it's because God willed it.

The biblical God kills, steals, and impregnates a husband's virgin wife... Is this not breaking three of the ten commandments that were given as law?

So. Those laws were given to man. As parents we make rules that conflict with what we allow for our kids. Why is this a problem when the Creator does it??

..Because he's a pretentious New Age dipsh!t. His beliefs would not survive if every trace of them were eradicated. If his beliefs were true, that would be another story. They would eventually be rediscovered. But they are beliefs that fall well outside the realm of testing and epistemology.. Making them unfounded and absurd beliefs.

Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp

At 9/7/2011 1:24:48 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:I am a bit confused by the Christian definition of God, he is apparently omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient. Yet when I show that such an entity is paradoxical and can't exist I am told that I am strawmanning the Christian God and he does not possess these qualities.

Omniscient and omnipotent are both a given, but omnibenevolent confuses the issue. It allows the atheist to decide what is good, whereas the Christian submits to God's will being good in all cases. As I stated in the other thread, the word "benevolent" doesn't even appear in my Bible(KJV), though it does say that God is perfect. Even if man judges an act to be bad, how can the will of a perfect being be bad, or evil?? That is my understanding of our use of omnibenevolent.

Is God OBJECTIVELY omnibenevolent.

I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.

At 9/7/2011 1:24:48 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:I am a bit confused by the Christian definition of God, he is apparently omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient. Yet when I show that such an entity is paradoxical and can't exist I am told that I am strawmanning the Christian God and he does not possess these qualities.

Omniscient and omnipotent are both a given, but omnibenevolent confuses the issue. It allows the atheist to decide what is good, whereas the Christian submits to God's will being good in all cases. As I stated in the other thread, the word "benevolent" doesn't even appear in my Bible(KJV), though it does say that God is perfect. Even if man judges an act to be bad, how can the will of a perfect being be bad, or evil?? That is my understanding of our use of omnibenevolent.

Is God OBJECTIVELY omnibenevolent.

Christians say that He can't do bad, skeptics pick certain acts and call them bad, so I guess that means no.

At 9/7/2011 1:24:48 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:I am a bit confused by the Christian definition of God, he is apparently omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient. Yet when I show that such an entity is paradoxical and can't exist I am told that I am strawmanning the Christian God and he does not possess these qualities.

Oddly enough I have pre-emptied this by questioning how these terms apply to God and pointing out that the Christian God becomes infinitely easier to believe if we do not assign it the omni values.

So what is it Christians... what are the attributes of God?

Those words are never used in the Bible, they are SELF refuting as yellow cannot be red and light cannot be dark.. so it is the words that are in error not Christians.

Anything that seems impossible to us is possible with God.

But you need reasons NOT to believe, right?

Have you never read any of my posts? I need reasons to believe. Why do you think I indulge you so much? Why do you think I am always willing to be your audience?

I only wish you were a little more willing to face the argument at hand:

The word omnipotent is a useless word because there are things that exist that are impossible.

To tranfer this error to God is either criminal ignorance or willful deception.